Regarding the foundation dogmas and philosophy of “science”, I would suggest that you start your reading with an examination of the French Materialist philosophers, starting in about the 17th century.

Then move on to examine: the class wars in Europe during the 18th and 19th century, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the establishment of the research universities in Germany, and the emergence of the profession of “Science”.

Once you understand the connections between, and the influence of these events, you can move on to examine the clash between the “Professional Scientists”, the Aristocracy and the Church.

Once you come to appreciate the interconnectedness of all these events in both a social and scientific context, you will be in a position to understand the impact of the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”. Specifically, how in the context of the events of the 19th century, it provided the impetus and justification for the leap into the philosophical and dogmatic foundations of contemporary science.

With this learning, you will come to understand why in contemporary science, some topics are considered “real science” and others are not; why some topics are considered “worthy of study”, and others are not.

One thing that should become evident is that scientists are not a higher species; they are no different from other people. They operate on an emotional level, just like real people; they “believe” because they believe; and once they believe, no amount of evidence will shift that belief. Just like regular people.

In this context you should also come to appreciate that there is only a very fine line between religion and “science”, and when it comes to “belief”, there is no line at all. As you come to appreciate this, you will understand why any scientist who dares to challenge established dogma will be committing professional suicide.

In the discussions on these pages nobody, least of all me, has disputed the value or the validity of “The Scientific Method”. As a defined process, it is clearly the best road map to discovery that is currently available; and in principle, has served the pursuit of knowledge well.

However, there does seem to be some confusion amongst some contributors to these pages regarding “the ideal” of The Scientific Method, and “the actualities” of the method in the real world. The “ideal” and the “actualities” are worlds apart.

The Scientific Method explicitly requires that its practitioners conduct research with no preconceptions, with an open mind and in an objective and unbiased manner; then report their results without manipulation or exclusion. Consistent with this, the interpretation of those results shall be limited to the actual research results, in the context of a broader theoretical framework, without omission or bias.

Implicit in the method is the assurance that those reading the published results can be confident that the research has been correctly conducted and accurately reported; and the interpretation is consistent with the actual empirical data.

In other words, people reading the research can have faith that what they are reading is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and therefore they can believe what they are being told.

In the real world, things are somewhat different.

First, most scientists conduct research in areas in which they already have a preconceived view of what the outcome “should be”. In doing this, there is usually a selection bias in data collection. That is, data which supports the original contention is accumulated, and that which is anomalous or contradictory is “cooked”, discarded, or ignored.

In the reporting of results, the data is usually interpreted to support the original thesis; it is not unusual to find published conclusions which are clearly at variance with the empirical data.

Very rarely is a paper written, or published, in which the author reports that his research has proven his original thesis wrong.

This background is very important to understand because in the real world, except where the research is directly connected with their own work, very few scientists read the original research relating to any given topic; most often they just read the summary. They rarely look at the actual empirical data, and even less often do they perform their own independent analysis of the data.

In other words, most scientists accept what the authors of a paper, or others, tell them. Ie: most scientists believe what they are told, as an act of faith; just like regular people.

To illustrate this process in action, we can consider one specific example: “The Great Global Warming Hoax”.

Some twenty years ago, a group of scientists (whom I will call “JMH”; short for Phil Jones, Michael Mann and James Hansen) were contracted to the task of collecting and collating weather data from around the world. They were then entrusted to distribute this collated data to other interested research scientists around the world, for use in their respective studies on climate.

For reasons known only to themselves, JMH undertook to manipulate and falsify the data to make it appear that the global climate was warming in an unprecedented manner. Furthermore, they then encouraged speculation that this warming was man made, and would have catastrophic effects on the planet.

Other scientists took the data provided by JMH on faith; and assuming that the data they were given was true, made their own projections from this data. Other scientists then took these projections, and assuming they also were true, made further projections. With each iteration of this process, more and more climate scientists came to believe that the world was, indeed, warming; and that the consequences were dire.

The process snowballed, and began to impact in other areas of science. More and more scientists came to believe what they were told; and having hitched their wagons to the theory, they selectively interpreted other scientific data in a manner which reinforced their belief.

The net result was wide spread belief that the planet is warming, than humanity is the cause, and that we are all doomed unless drastic action is taken now.

Despite the huge momentum developed in support of the warming thesis, there were numerous dissident voices. However, since these voices were railing against an entrenched belief system, they were largely ignored and marginalised.

The thesis began to unravel when a statistician in Canada performed an analysis of the data being provided by JMH and showed that it was fraudulent. Then, last year, a whistle blower released a collection comprising thousands of documents which clearly exposed the fraud as it had been perpetrated by JMH over the years.

The outrage by real scientists who now realise that they have been duped by JMH is still growing.

Despite this, there is still a large group of scientists who still believe in the warming thesis as promulgated by JMH. Ie: they still believe despite the evidence of fraud, and the overwhelming body of objective evidence to the contrary. They have built their careers and their credibility around a fraud, and are not about to admit they were wrong.

This example is significant for a number of reasons; first, it demonstrates how science works in the real world. Ie: someone proposes a theory which sounds promising and is not too radical a departure from conventional wisdom; this is accepted by the average scientist as a matter of faith, and soon becomes accepted “fact”. The “fact” becomes the basis for belief; and the belief becomes unshakable.

All of this has relevance to Spookology.

Around the turn of the 20th century, Spookology and all things associated with it was deemed to be an area “not worthy of study”. The reasons for this will be clear to anyone who has a working knowledge of the topics noted in the first couple of paragraphs, above.

Consequently, this belief has become a foundation dogma in science; and this belief is held by probably the majority of contemporary scientists.

Note that this is a “belief”, and this belief has been acquired by the average scientist by means of the process described above; this is as opposed to a belief having been acquired by an individual through their application of The Scientific Method to the available facts.

Anyone who openly challenges this dogma will be committing professional suicide. Their funding will be cut off, their job will disappear, and they will be shunned by the scientific community.

All of this explains why progress in Spookology is so slow, why we continue to have these repetitious and circular discussions, why there is never enough “evidence” to satisfy the cynics or the sceptics, and why the cheer squad continues to lead cheers, but never deviates from the dogma.

Regarding the foundation dogmas and philosophy of “science”, I would suggest that you start your reading with an examination of the French Materialist philosophers, starting in about the 17th century.

Then move on to examine: the class wars in Europe during the 18th and 19th century, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the establishment of the research universities in Germany, and the emergence of the profession of “Science”.

Once you understand the connections between, and the influence of these events, you can move on to examine the clash between the “Professional Scientists”, the Aristocracy and the Church.

Once you come to appreciate the interconnectedness of all these events in both a social and scientific context, you will be in a position to understand the impact of the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”. Specifically, how in the context of the events of the 19th century, it provided the impetus and justification for the leap into the philosophical and dogmatic foundations of contemporary science.

With this learning, you will come to understand why in contemporary science, some topics are considered “real science” and others are not; why some topics are considered “worthy of study”, and others are not.

One thing that should become evident is that scientists are not a higher species; they are no different from other people. They operate on an emotional level, just like real people; they “believe” because they believe; and once they believe, no amount of evidence will shift that belief. Just like regular people.

In this context you should also come to appreciate that there is only a very fine line between religion and “science”, and when it comes to “belief”, there is no line at all. As you come to appreciate this, you will understand why any scientist who dares to challenge established dogma will be committing professional suicide.

In the discussions on these pages nobody, least of all me, has disputed the value or the validity of “The Scientific Method”. As a defined process, it is clearly the best road map to discovery that is currently available; and in principle, has served the pursuit of knowledge well.

However, there does seem to be some confusion amongst some contributors to these pages regarding “the ideal” of The Scientific Method, and “the actualities” of the method in the real world. The “ideal” and the “actualities” are worlds apart.

The Scientific Method explicitly requires that its practitioners conduct research with no preconceptions, with an open mind and in an objective and unbiased manner; then report their results without manipulation or exclusion. Consistent with this, the interpretation of those results shall be limited to the actual research results, in the context of a broader theoretical framework, without omission or bias.

Implicit in the method is the assurance that those reading the published results can be confident that the research has been correctly conducted and accurately reported; and the interpretation is consistent with the actual empirical data.

In other words, people reading the research can have faith that what they are reading is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and therefore they can believe what they are being told.

In the real world, things are somewhat different.

First, most scientists conduct research in areas in which they already have a preconceived view of what the outcome “should be”. In doing this, there is usually a selection bias in data collection. That is, data which supports the original contention is accumulated, and that which is anomalous or contradictory is “cooked”, discarded, or ignored.

In the reporting of results, the data is usually interpreted to support the original thesis; it is not unusual to find published conclusions which are clearly at variance with the empirical data.

Very rarely is a paper written, or published, in which the author reports that his research has proven his original thesis wrong.

This background is very important to understand because in the real world, except where the research is directly connected with their own work, very few scientists read the original research relating to any given topic; most often they just read the summary. They rarely look at the actual empirical data, and even less often do they perform their own independent analysis of the data.

In other words, most scientists accept what the authors of a paper, or others, tell them. Ie: most scientists believe what they are told, as an act of faith; just like regular people.

To illustrate this process in action, we can consider one specific example: “The Great Global Warming Hoax”.

Some twenty years ago, a group of scientists (whom I will call “JMH”; short for Phil Jones, Michael Mann and James Hansen) were contracted to the task of collecting and collating weather data from around the world. They were then entrusted to distribute this collated data to other interested research scientists around the world, for use in their respective studies on climate.

For reasons known only to themselves, JMH undertook to manipulate and falsify the data to make it appear that the global climate was warming in an unprecedented manner. Furthermore, they then encouraged speculation that this warming was man made, and would have catastrophic effects on the planet.

Other scientists took the data provided by JMH on faith; and assuming that the data they were given was true, made their own projections from this data. Other scientists then took these projections, and assuming they also were true, made further projections. With each iteration of this process, more and more climate scientists came to believe that the world was, indeed, warming; and that the consequences were dire.

The process snowballed, and began to impact in other areas of science. More and more scientists came to believe what they were told; and having hitched their wagons to the theory, they selectively interpreted other scientific data in a manner which reinforced their belief.

The net result was wide spread belief that the planet is warming, than humanity is the cause, and that we are all doomed unless drastic action is taken now.

Despite the huge momentum developed in support of the warming thesis, there were numerous dissident voices. However, since these voices were railing against an entrenched belief system, they were largely ignored and marginalised.

The thesis began to unravel when a statistician in Canada performed an analysis of the data being provided by JMH and showed that it was fraudulent. Then, last year, a whistle blower released a collection comprising thousands of documents which clearly exposed the fraud as it had been perpetrated by JMH over the years.

The outrage by real scientists who now realise that they have been duped by JMH is still growing.

Despite this, there is still a large group of scientists who still believe in the warming thesis as promulgated by JMH. Ie: they still believe despite the evidence of fraud, and the overwhelming body of objective evidence to the contrary. They have built their careers and their credibility around a fraud, and are not about to admit they were wrong.

This example is significant for a number of reasons; first, it demonstrates how science works in the real world. Ie: someone proposes a theory which sounds promising and is not too radical a departure from conventional wisdom; this is accepted by the average scientist as a matter of faith, and soon becomes accepted “fact”. The “fact” becomes the basis for belief; and the belief becomes unshakable.

All of this has relevance to Spookology.

Around the turn of the 20th century, Spookology and all things associated with it was deemed to be an area “not worthy of study”. The reasons for this will be clear to anyone who has a working knowledge of the topics noted in the first couple of paragraphs, above.

Consequently, this belief has become a foundation dogma in science; and this belief is held by probably the majority of contemporary scientists.

Note that this is a “belief”, and this belief has been acquired by the average scientist by means of the process described above; this is as opposed to a belief having been acquired by an individual through their application of The Scientific Method to the available facts.

Anyone who openly challenges this dogma will be committing professional suicide. Their funding will be cut off, their job will disappear, and they will be shunned by the scientific community.

All of this explains why progress in Spookology is so slow, why we continue to have these repetitious and circular discussions, why there is never enough “evidence” to satisfy the cynics or the sceptics, and why the cheer squad continues to lead cheers, but never deviates from the dogma.

And somehow even with the heavy burden of dogma on the backs of scientists they somehow manage everyday to understand this universe a bit better.

The research is simply not inconclusive. Anyone who has the interest and ability to comprehend scientific papers can read the research.

I have a deep interest in (and a self-proclaimed ability to comprehend) MANY areas of science.

In order for research to be conclusive, there must be incontrovertible "evidence". If there were any, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Please cite any ONE law, hypothesis, theory, postulate, or principle related to the field of paranormal research, and recognized through due scientific review process. Do that and I'll humbly genuflect in your presence.

That just isn't the way the scientific process works. The scientific community is well known to hand out every inch of rope you might need to hang yourself, if that's what you're bent on doing. I think I've mentioned cold fusion before?

And somehow even with the heavy burden of dogma on the backs of scientists they somehow manage everyday to understand this universe a bit better.

Regarding the foundation dogmas and philosophy of “science”, I would suggest that you start your reading with an examination of the French Materialist philosophers, starting in about the 17th century.:

I already beat that by about 2000 years.

Then move on to examine: ... :

I suggest we move on to something more basic and binary. Who are you trying to convince and of what? You'll not convince me, and it doesn't matter. You're arguing against the long established principles of a body of international scholars, scientists - IOW experts, as recognized BY THEIR PEERS. There is no match in the paranormal field because the "research" and "evidence" is so inconclusive and irreproducible as to provide NO PROOF. Within the field of paranormal reseach, our peers are so disorganized and unprofessional that any chance of wide-spread acceptance and credibiltiy is remote. IMHO, as long as "investigators" continue to gather and present "evidence" using GHOST DETECTORS and playing with the Ovilus, that situation will not change.

The Scientific Method explicitly requires that its practitioners conduct research with no preconceptions, with an open mind and in an objective and unbiased manner; then report their results without manipulation or exclusion. Consistent with this, the interpretation of those results shall be limited to the actual research results, in the context of a broader theoretical framework, without omission or bias.

Absolutely correct.

In other words, people reading the research can have faith that what they are reading is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and therefore they can believe what they are being told.

Absolutely INCORRECT. I get the distinct imression of your refusal to aknowledge the established process. (???) The very reason YOU are required to report your findings "without manipulation or exclusion," is so an UNBIASED group of your PEERS can follow in your footsteps and REPEAT your experiments and thus either confirm OR DISPEL your submission.

Very rarely is a paper written, or published, in which the author reports that his research has proven his original thesis wrong.

I would agree with never. Else, what would be the point of submitting a paper proving myself wrong, and asking my peers to prove me wrong, after I already have???

If anything, this illustrates what may be a flaw in the sientific method. If I assume something to be wrong based on my own error, causing me not to submit it for review, it will go undisclosed and possibly undiscovered. If you don't know the history behind Teflon, I suggets you take a moment to research it.

In other words, most scientists accept what the authors of a paper, or others, tell them. Ie: most scientists believe what they are told, as an act of faith; just like regular people.

Most? Most. How many is "most" and according to which recognized authority?

To illustrate this process in action, we can consider one specific example: “The Great Global Warming Hoax”.

Ah. That's a perfect example of the lack of incontrovertible evidence. For BOTH sides of the argument. Unfortunately for your argument, were it not for the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, there'd be no argument.

It seems to be the perfect irony, that one can argue against the results of science, in favor of something with such scant scientific "evidence", while using a tool that wouldn't exist if it were not for significant advances in science.

For you canuck. A person that believes the cabal of scientists and science has a dogma or orthodoxy that's inviolate.

Physicists Prove Einstein Wrong AUSTIN, Texas, May 21, 2010 — A century after Albert Einstein said we would never be able to observe the instantaneous velocity of tiny particles as they randomly shake and shimmy — so-called Brownian motion — physicist Mark Raizen and his group have done just that.

“This is the first observation of the instantaneous velocity of a Brownian particle,” said Raizen, the Sid W. Richardson Foundation Regents Chair and professor of physics at The University of Texas at Austin. “It's a prediction of Einstein's that has been standing untested for 100 years. He proposed a test to observe the velocity in 1907, but said that the experiment could not be done.”

I read the Phillip experiment in the first post on this thread. It has one very big and obvious flaw that stands out immediately: it was conducted by believers rather than neutral subjects. These people had an interest in making something happen. And then they go on TV - not the most reliable arena for producing good science. I don't know the details, but I wouldn't rule out faking as a simple explanation before throwing out the laws of physics.

If this had been a rigourous, truly well controlled scientific experiment, its results could have been published in any well-established, peer reviewed journal, rather than the obscure Journal of Parapsychology. The Lancet, no less, published a study into near-death experience not so long ago that claimed to offer proof of life after death, so don't tell me that the scientific establishment shies away from such things (although this clearly wasn't one of the Lancet's finest moments, as the research by Van Lommel et al. was seriously flawed and proved nothing of the kind).

How is it possible, I always wonder, if an ability like telekenesis is a common human faculty, that reports of it are so rare, and studies even rarer? Why is it so hard to get evidence for it, and why do we have to make do with reports of 40-year old experiments?

I read the Phillip experiment in the first post on this thread. It has one very big and obvious flaw that stands out immediately: it was conducted by believers rather than neutral subjects. These people had an interest in making something happen. And then they go on TV - not the most reliable arena for producing good science. I don't know the details, but I wouldn't rule out faking as a simple explanation before throwing out the laws of physics.

If this had been a rigourous, truly well controlled scientific experiment, its results could have been published in any well-established, peer reviewed journal, rather than the obscure Journal of Parapsychology. The Lancet, no less, published a study into near-death experience not so long ago that claimed to offer proof of life after death, so don't tell me that the scientific establishment shies away from such things (although this clearly wasn't one of the Lancet's finest moments, as the research by Van Lommel et al. was seriously flawed and proved nothing of the kind).

How is it possible, I always wonder, if an ability like telekenesis is a common human faculty, that reports of it are so rare, and studies even rarer? Why is it so hard to get evidence for it, and why do we have to make do with reports of 40-year old experiments?

I would have to call you naive................................

I read the Phillip experiment in the first post on this thread. It has one very big and obvious flaw that stands out immediately: it was conducted by believers rather than neutral subjects.

Pk appears to be "fragile", doubt can inhibit results. If you had done much study regarding Pk, you would not be asking this question.

If this had been a rigourous, truly well controlled scientific experiment, its results could have been published in any well-established, peer reviewed journal, rather than the obscure Journal of Parapsychology.

Do you understand what a controlled scientific experiment is? If so, you must understand that things like Muon decay(independently verified by Physisist's the world over), does not utilize the same criteria as experiments involving humans and their percieved influence.

How is it possible, I always wonder, if an ability like telekenesis is a common human faculty, that reports of it are so rare, and studies even rarer?

You must not "wonder" with much effort, many examples exist. Again the same link as posted previously in this post:

I wouldn't rule out faking as a simple explanation before throwing out the laws of physics.

Agreed, but what "laws of Physics" are you refering to? The Physicists I associate with dont know of any laws, only models and theories. The word "law" has not been used "formally" by Physicists for more than 100 years.

All Pk, that I am aware of, can be explained by conventional Physics. Nothing needs to be "thrown out". One theory is that "Pk influences probabilities"Quantum probabilities is what makes Pk possible.

Skepticism is healthy and useful. You seem somewhat ignorant on the Pk subject and extensive studies. Yet you seem very "opinionated".You would be a much more credible skeptic, if you increased your knowledge on the subject.

I have learned much about Pk from my interactions with people at SSE, their link has been posted twice above. SSE could help you increase you knowledge and credibility.

And why is that...? I think it is more conducive to a discussion if you simply say what you mean.

Pk appears to be "fragile", doubt can inhibit results.

This is one of the great paranormal cop-outs. 'You have to believe it, otherwise it won't work'. That is a very easy way to escape the rigorous test of science. If PK effects are influenced by doubt (but why would they be...??) they cannot be researched, because all good reserach begins with doubt (i.e., skepticism). But it is of course not so hard to set up PK experiments without 'doubting' observers in the room; results can be registered in many ways and analyzed afterwards. By skeptic researchers, of course.

Many examples exist of "Academic generated, peer reviewed Pk studies

I think our definitions of what constitutes serious academic study differ, but I will check out the articles in this publication.

Do you understand what a controlled scientific experiment is? If so, you must understand that things like Muon decay(independently verified by Physisist's the world over), does not utilize the same criteria as experiments involving humans and their percieved influence.

Oh? How do these criteria differ then? Criteria like independent observation, repeatability, or ruling out alternative explanations in the setup, seem pretty universal. They are used in psychological research too, for instance. The scientific method has proven its worth in many more ways than I can list here. Any phenomenon for which it is claimed it needs a different approach because 'normal science' won't do it, deserves to be looked upon with a healthy dose of suspicion.

All Pk, that I am aware of, can be explained by conventional Physics. Nothing needs to be "thrown out". One theory is that "Pk influences probabilities"Quantum probabilities is what makes Pk possible..

And why is that...? I think it is more conducive to a discussion if you simply say what you mean.

Pk appears to be "fragile", doubt can inhibit results.

This is one of the great paranormal cop-outs. 'You have to believe it, otherwise it won't work'. That is a very easy way to escape the rigorous test of science. If PK effects are influenced by doubt (but why would they be...??) they cannot be researched, because all good reserach begins with doubt (i.e., skepticism). But it is of course not so hard to set up PK experiments without 'doubting' observers in the room; results can be registered in many ways and analyzed afterwards. By skeptic researchers, of course.

Many examples exist of "Academic generated, peer reviewed Pk studies

I think our definitions of what constitutes serious academic study differ, but I will check out the articles in this publication.

Do you understand what a controlled scientific experiment is? If so, you must understand that things like Muon decay(independently verified by Physisist's the world over), does not utilize the same criteria as experiments involving humans and their percieved influence.

Oh? How do these criteria differ then? Criteria like independent observation, repeatability, or ruling out alternative explanations in the setup, seem pretty universal. They are used in psychological research too, for instance. The scientific method has proven its worth in many more ways than I can list here. Any phenomenon for which it is claimed it needs a different approach because 'normal science' won't do it, deserves to be looked upon with a healthy dose of suspicion.

All Pk, that I am aware of, can be explained by conventional Physics. Nothing needs to be "thrown out". One theory is that "Pk influences probabilities"Quantum probabilities is what makes Pk possible..

I believe you to be "Naive" about Physics, as well as Pk. Have you any formal education in Physics?Study Pk influence on Random Number Generators, and the Observer influencing the outcome. If you study Quantum Mechanics you will see these are not as absurd as they sound.

In my eyes, being so naive, yet so sure, destroys the credibility of your opinion on this subject.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer

Take comfort, Robot. I am working on my PK knowledge. From your link I randomly picked an article by Helmut Schmidt, entitled The Strange Properties of Psychokinesis (JSE, vol. 1, nr. 2, 103-118). I seem to have picked rather well, as I find Mr. Schmidt is quite a name in PK. Imagine finding in such an utterly obscure journal experimental findings that rewrite our knowledge of quantum physics! Why doesn't the world know?

Why indeed?

Schmidt's experiments sure look sophisticated, if at times unnecessarily cumbersome. While the forums around here are full of moving furniture and what not, this researcher finds evidence for a mere few percents deviation in the random flashing of lightbulbs. Compared to some claims made in the paranormal arena it looks decidedly unspectacular. But his findings are statistically significant. Or so he says.

If that is true, Mr. Schmidt has shown that a person with PK capabilities is able to change the printing on a list of scores in a sealed envelope! That is actually what his research implies. His theory is that as long as the outcome of a random generator run has not been observed, it will be in a state of quantum uncertainty. So if the outcome of a random trial is printed, and the print is not looked at by anyone but put in a sealed envelope, the actual figures on the print will not be determined until someone looks at them. This gives the PK-subject the opportunity to influence the outcome of the pre-recorded random events one way or the other. Indeed, the independent observer who holds the envelope can ask the subject to skew the outcome of the random generator in a particular direction. After the test run is completed he opens the envelope, and low and behold, the printed outcome is indeed significantly skewed in the direction that was requested!

However. Despite his PhD Schmidt seems unaware that when quantum physicists talk about observing, they don't necessarily mean a conscious observer. Any apparatus that 'watches' or registers the outcome will do. This has actually been demonstrated in research (see here, for instance: article in Nature). Assuming that quantum effects, which have only ever been demonstrated on the level of elementary particles, can be so readily translated to the macroscopic world as Schmidt casually and without any evidence assumes, Schmidt's printer in fact already registers and therefore determines the outcome. There is no changing of the print after that. So how come his findings fit so neatly with his faulty theory?

Schmidt didn't mind testing the PK abilities of chickens and even cockroaches. Unfortunately he was shown to have tampered with the data in at least one of those studies. Maybe that explains, too, why his data in this study so neatly fit a faulty theory?

The results Schmidt reported, if valid, would be utterly spectacular. Yet the research is old, forgotten and unreplicated and doesn't seem to have caused even the tiniest ripple in the community of quantum physicists. I think I can see why. Pseudoscience remains just that even when conducted by a physicist with a PhD and disguised under layers of technicalities and sophistication.

Take comfort, Robot. I am working on my PK knowledge. From your link I randomly picked an article by Helmut Schmidt, entitled The Strange Properties of Psychokinesis (JSE, vol. 1, nr. 2, 103-118). I seem to have picked rather well, as I find Mr. Schmidt is quite a name in PK. Imagine finding in such an utterly obscure journal experimental findings that rewrite our knowledge of quantum physics! Why doesn't the world know?

Why indeed?

Schmidt's experiments sure look sophisticated, if at times unnecessarily cumbersome. While the forums around here are full of moving furniture and what not, this researcher finds evidence for a mere few percents deviation in the random flashing of lightbulbs. Compared to some claims made in the paranormal arena it looks decidedly unspectacular. But his findings are statistically significant. Or so he says.

If that is true, Mr. Schmidt has shown that a person with PK capabilities is able to change the printing on a list of scores in a sealed envelope! That is actually what his research implies. His theory is that as long as the outcome of a random generator run has not been observed, it will be in a state of quantum uncertainty. So if the outcome of a random trial is printed, and the print is not looked at by anyone but put in a sealed envelope, the actual figures on the print will not be determined until someone looks at them. This gives the PK-subject the opportunity to influence the outcome of the pre-recorded random events one way or the other. Indeed, the independent observer who holds the envelope can ask the subject to skew the outcome of the random generator in a particular direction. After the test run is completed he opens the envelope, and low and behold, the printed outcome is indeed significantly skewed in the direction that was requested!

However. Despite his PhD Schmidt seems unaware that when quantum physicists talk about observing, they don't necessarily mean a conscious observer. Any apparatus that 'watches' or registers the outcome will do. This has actually been demonstrated in research (see here, for instance: article in Nature). Assuming that quantum effects, which have only ever been demonstrated on the level of elementary particles, can be so readily translated to the macroscopic world as Schmidt casually and without any evidence assumes, Schmidt's printer in fact already registers and therefore determines the outcome. There is no changing of the print after that. So how come his findings fit so neatly with his faulty theory?

Schmidt didn't mind testing the PK abilities of chickens and even cockroaches. Unfortunately he was shown to have tampered with the data in at least one of those studies. Maybe that explains, too, why his data in this study so neatly fit a faulty theory?

The results Schmidt reported, if valid, would be utterly spectacular. Yet the research is old, forgotten and unreplicated and doesn't seem to have caused even the tiniest ripple in the community of quantum physicists. I think I can see why. Pseudoscience remains just that even when conducted by a physicist with a PhD and disguised under layers of technicalities and sophistication.

On to the next article. Any suggestions? This is fun!

Again, your ignorance of Physics is showing.

Assuming that quantum effects, which have only ever been demonstrated on the level of elementary particles, can be so readily translated to the macroscopic world as Schmidt casually and without any evidence assumes,

Quantum effects, (most specifically entnanglement), HAVE been demonstrated on a Macroscopic Scale. Indeed, large enough to be seen by the human eye.

Schmidt is only one researcher and set(s) of studies. Keep in mind "Retro-Causality" is a human interpretation of events, there are other Non-Retro Causality explanations.

Physicist York Dobyns told and audience I was in "Placebo Effect, is the Schizophrenia, of the Medical Community".

If you truly have an interest in Pk, study the analogues with "Placebo Effect". Thousands of studies have been conducted by many Physicians. Yet there remains NO clear concensus. It is just as "slippery" as Pk studies and may involve some of the same "mechanisms".

Most Doctors would agree, mind over matter can assist biology with things like pain, transmitters emitted from the brain from using a Placebo effect to initiate the interaction. Although some Physician's say there is NO Placebo effect, only misinterpretation of data.

However, Placebo effects seem to pursist even where no evidence of Psychological/Biological mechanism exists.

My personal Physician, supervised a study for a hair regrowth drug. A control group of placebo's was also used. A significan percentage,(outside normal distribution) showed new hair growth on the Placebo!

My Physician just shook his head. I asked him how he interpreted this, his answer was "you tell me!"

If you study Placebo Effect Abstracts, (many from the New England Journal of Medicine), you will see that these bizzare results are common. Placebo effect removing warts is another abstract.

Good to see you taking an apparent sincere interest. Nothing wrong with Skepticism, as long as it is informed, knowledgeable Skepticism.

Take comfort, Robot. I am working on my PK knowledge. From your link I randomly picked an article by Helmut Schmidt, entitled The Strange Properties of Psychokinesis (JSE, vol. 1, nr. 2, 103-118). I seem to have picked rather well, as I find Mr. Schmidt is quite a name in PK. Imagine finding in such an utterly obscure journal experimental findings that rewrite our knowledge of quantum physics! Why doesn't the world know?

Why indeed?

Schmidt's experiments sure look sophisticated, if at times unnecessarily cumbersome. While the forums around here are full of moving furniture and what not, this researcher finds evidence for a mere few percents deviation in the random flashing of lightbulbs. Compared to some claims made in the paranormal arena it looks decidedly unspectacular. But his findings are statistically significant. Or so he says.

If that is true, Mr. Schmidt has shown that a person with PK capabilities is able to change the printing on a list of scores in a sealed envelope! That is actually what his research implies. His theory is that as long as the outcome of a random generator run has not been observed, it will be in a state of quantum uncertainty. So if the outcome of a random trial is printed, and the print is not looked at by anyone but put in a sealed envelope, the actual figures on the print will not be determined until someone looks at them. This gives the PK-subject the opportunity to influence the outcome of the pre-recorded random events one way or the other. Indeed, the independent observer who holds the envelope can ask the subject to skew the outcome of the random generator in a particular direction. After the test run is completed he opens the envelope, and low and behold, the printed outcome is indeed significantly skewed in the direction that was requested!

However. Despite his PhD Schmidt seems unaware that when quantum physicists talk about observing, they don't necessarily mean a conscious observer. Any apparatus that 'watches' or registers the outcome will do. This has actually been demonstrated in research (see here, for instance: article in Nature). Assuming that quantum effects, which have only ever been demonstrated on the level of elementary particles, can be so readily translated to the macroscopic world as Schmidt casually and without any evidence assumes, Schmidt's printer in fact already registers and therefore determines the outcome. There is no changing of the print after that. So how come his findings fit so neatly with his faulty theory?

Schmidt didn't mind testing the PK abilities of chickens and even cockroaches. Unfortunately he was shown to have tampered with the data in at least one of those studies. Maybe that explains, too, why his data in this study so neatly fit a faulty theory?

The results Schmidt reported, if valid, would be utterly spectacular. Yet the research is old, forgotten and unreplicated and doesn't seem to have caused even the tiniest ripple in the community of quantum physicists. I think I can see why. Pseudoscience remains just that even when conducted by a physicist with a PhD and disguised under layers of technicalities and sophistication.

On to the next article. Any suggestions? This is fun!

Again, your ignorance of Physics is showing.

Assuming that quantum effects, which have only ever been demonstrated on the level of elementary particles, can be so readily translated to the macroscopic world as Schmidt casually and without any evidence assumes,